Witnesses are among the most critical pillars of any criminal investigation. Their accounts provide the human context that forensic evidence alone cannot, clarifying timelines, motivations and events before, during and after a crime.
In complex or controversial cases – particularly those involving police use of force – witness testimony is decisive for establishing accountability and public confidence in the justice process.
Crucially, a witness is a witness regardless of background. Criminal justice systems – including Malaysia’s – do not disqualify individuals from giving evidence merely because they have a prior criminal record or complicated personal history. The admissibility and value of testimony are matters for the courts, assessed through consistency, corroboration and credibility – not public opinion or media narratives. Treating witnesses differently based on background undermines both fairness and the integrity of investigations.
Police therefore carry a heavy responsibility when dealing with witnesses. Their duty is to gather evidence impartially and professionally, ensuring all relevant accounts are recorded promptly and accurately. This includes witnesses whose backgrounds may be uncomfortable, controversial or unpopular. Excluding or publicly discrediting such individuals risks losing vital evidence and creates the impression that investigations are selective rather than objective.
Equally important is how police communicate about witnesses and suspects in the public sphere. In high-profile cases, police briefings are closely followed by the media and public. While transparency is essential, it must be exercised with restraint. Disclosing unnecessary personal information – such as marital status, past relationships or unrelated criminal histories – serves little investigative purpose and may instead shape public opinion inappropriately before facts are fully tested in court.
The recent controversy surrounding a fatal shooting case in Melaka illustrates this dilemma. Public concern arose after police statements revealed personal details about a woman linked to the incident – including aspects of her private life and alleged criminal background. Critics questioned why such information was relevant to the core issues of the case and whether its disclosure risked diverting attention from more pressing matters – such as the circumstances surrounding the use of lethal force.
When police publicly highlight a witness’s or suspect’s background in a negative manner, several damaging consequences may follow. First, it prejudices public perception. The public may subconsciously discount testimony not because it lacks merit but because the individual has been portrayed unfavourably. This undermines the principle that evidence should be judged on facts, not character.
Second, such disclosures may discourage cooperation. Individuals with prior convictions or complex personal histories may become reluctant to come forward if they fear public shaming. This is dangerous in serious crimes where witnesses may already be fearful. A policing culture perceived as punitive risks silencing voices crucial to uncovering the truth.
Third – and perhaps most damaging – public trust in the police erodes. Trust is the foundation of effective policing. Without it, citizens are less likely to cooperate, provide information or accept official explanations in contentious cases. When police appear to be shaping narratives rather than neutrally presenting facts, public confidence suffers.
It is important to distinguish between assessing credibility in court and attacking it in public. The former is a legitimate and necessary part of the judicial process, governed by rules of evidence and judicial oversight. The latter – when done prematurely through media briefings – risks usurping the role of the courts and compromising the presumption of innocence – a cornerstone of the rule of law.
In cases involving police action, the stakes are higher. Allegations of excessive force demand heightened transparency and restraint. The public reasonably expects investigations to focus on objective evidence – forensic findings, body-worn camera footage, ballistic reports and witness statements – rather than personal narratives that may deflect scrutiny. Any perception that police are attempting to justify actions by discrediting individuals connected to the case is deeply corrosive.
Modern policing increasingly recognises that procedural fairness – how police treat people, explain decisions and exercise authority – is as important as outcomes. When witnesses are treated with dignity and neutrality, even difficult incidents are more likely to be understood within a framework of fairness. Conversely, when police communication appears dismissive or judgmental, it fuels suspicion and polarisation.
This does not mean police must remain silent. The public has a legitimate right to be informed, especially in cases involving public safety. However, information shared should be relevant, proportionate and necessary. The focus should remain on confirmed facts, investigative steps taken and assurances of accountability. Personal details that do not materially advance public understanding of the case should be withheld until tested in court.
Ultimately, how police handle witnesses reflects their commitment to justice. Respecting all witnesses, regardless of background, is not an act of leniency but an affirmation of professionalism and the rule of law. A criminal record does not negate a person’s capacity to observe, remember or speak truthfully. Courts exist precisely to weigh such factors carefully and fairly.
In a civil democratic society, public confidence in policing is fragile and must be constantly earned. Responsible handling of witnesses and disciplined communication with the media are essential to preserving that confidence. By focusing on evidence rather than character, and fairness rather than narratives, police strengthen not only individual investigations but also their own legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of Twentytwo13.